Originally posted by PBE6This is again a better asked question on the Spiritual forum, but you
What is the spark of life?
asked.
Genesis 2 (American Standard Version)
7. And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Forming man from the earth is putting it all together by design, but
what makes man alive is the breath of life.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI thought you might say something like that. This is the basis for your belief in Intelligent Design? 😕 Where's the part where God breathes life into the nostrils of a tape worm? Or a salmonella bacterium? By your own admission, this is not science, so I don't know why you even bothered asking the question that started this thread in the first place, especially in the Science Forum. But if you can prove: (1) that God exists, (2) that God has the power to bestow life by blowing into some nose-shaped dirt, and (3) that nothing other than God's mouth-to-nose suscitation could ever bring a pile of dirt to life, I will rethink my entire position.
This is again a better asked question on the Spiritual forum, but you
asked.
Genesis 2 (American Standard Version)
7. And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Forming man from the earth is putting it all together by design, but
what makes man alive is the breath of life.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThat statement should end with 'that is my belief', not implying it as fact.
This is again a better asked question on the Spiritual forum, but you
asked.
Genesis 2 (American Standard Version)
7. And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Forming man from the earth is putting it all together by design, but
what makes man alive is the breath of life.
Kelly
1 edit
Just for the record, random mutations are random while evolution is not. Provided a random mutation occurs that improves the fitness of an organism (such as the development of a proto-eye from no eye, a more robust proto-eye from the original proto-eye, etc...) the theory of evolution dictates that the organism will preferentially proliferate. In this way, evolution is akin to a ratchet being turned by the wind, always tightening, never slipping, despite the torrent of randomness being thrown at it.
Since KellyJay has offered no scientific evidence to the contrary, it looks like the theory of evolution is safe for another day.
Originally posted by KellyJayKelly, if you ask, 'Why do you think Jesus chided the rich,' and I answer, 'St
We are done with that as far as I'm concern. I'm not going to repeat
myself, you have not attempted to grasp my answers, instead you have
cried I did not frame them in such a way that was acceptable to you,
and you got insulting. If you wish to have a discussion, you should
at least attempt to grasp what it is I'm saying, and lay off the insults.
Kelly
Paul tells that love is an important virtue,' would you feel like I addressed the
question adequately?
The issue here is Intelligent Design. I am positing that, under any reasonable
definition of 'intelligent,' having a blind spot is a remarkably stupid inclusion
to the eye, given that it occludes 2% of the vision in the human eye.
You seem to have no objection to this. You seem to think that 'good enough'
is a sign of intelligence. I seem to think more of God than you do.
So, I ask you: why give a blind spot? Your response is speculative opinion
with nothing to support it.
Well, I'm really sorry, but that's not science. Science hinges on evidence,
weighted with plausibility.
You've offered no reason -- scientific or otherwise -- to consider your opinions
plausible.
That's all I am asking: why would your position on this issue be even remotely
acceptable in a science forum?
Why would an 'Intelligent' Designer give a blind spot to a whale?
nemesio
Originally posted by KellyJayBut certain concepts regarding them can be ruled out by mere thought experiments and the facts of identical twins and cloning etc.
Not sure why you'd like to discuss the soul or the spirit with respect to
life, man cannot measure either so it is beyond the power of man to
understand either, they are accepted or rejected, they cannot be proven.
I would submit; however, that something does leave a living body
when it dies, because people die and their material make up is still
intact many times, if life were just an arrangement of chemicals why
would death come when the chemicals are still put together in the
proper fashion?
Kelly
But when does a body die? If a tree dies, it can be called dead yet in some cases if just one single cell remains alive it can regrow at a later date. So does its soul leave after the last cell dies? What if that last cell was in a leaf that had fallen off the tree one week before the rest of the tree died?
If one cell of mine is frozen and I later die and am cloned from the one cell, do I get a new soul?
You say the chemicals are still put together in the proper fashion even though it is patently obvious that they are not (hence death).
Originally posted by PBE6I do not call my self an ID'er, I'm a creationist. ID could have anything
I thought you might say something like that. This is the basis for your belief in Intelligent Design? 😕 Where's the part where God breathes life into the nostrils of a tape worm? Or a salmonella bacterium? By your own admission, this is not science, so I don't know why you even bothered asking the question that started this thread in the first place, espec ...[text shortened]... uscitation could ever bring a pile of dirt to life, I will rethink my entire position.
starting up life from E.T. to something else, the point of ID isn't that
God did it; it is that it would require something putting everything
where it needs to be, when it needs to be there, for as long as it
needs to be there and so on. I fall into the Biblical Creationist group,
where I believe God did it, which could disagree with those that believe
ID did occur, but not give God credit for it.
Kelly
Originally posted by PBE6I do not complain on the basis of scripture here, design issues are
I thought you might say something like that. This is the basis for your belief in Intelligent Design? 😕 Where's the part where God breathes life into the nostrils of a tape worm? Or a salmonella bacterium? By your own admission, this is not science, so I don't know why you even bothered asking the question that started this thread in the first place, espec ...[text shortened]... uscitation could ever bring a pile of dirt to life, I will rethink my entire position.
what causes me to believe evolution cannot happen the way people
project it has.
Kelly
Originally posted by PBE6Like I said, here the soul and the spirit are non-issues, man cannot
I thought you might say something like that. This is the basis for your belief in Intelligent Design? 😕 Where's the part where God breathes life into the nostrils of a tape worm? Or a salmonella bacterium? By your own admission, this is not science, so I don't know why you even bothered asking the question that started this thread in the first place, espec ...[text shortened]... uscitation could ever bring a pile of dirt to life, I will rethink my entire position.
prove either of those, so why bring them up? What can be looked at
with respect to systems, within systems, within systems all working
to keep life going is enough without dealing with the spiritual aspect
of this.
Kelly
Originally posted by PBE6For the record I fail to see how you can believe that!
Just for the record, random mutations are random while evolution is not. Provided a random mutation occurs that improves the fitness of an organism (such as the development of a proto-eye from no eye, a more robust proto-eye from the original proto-eye, etc...) the theory of evolution dictates that the organism will preferentially proliferate. In this way, ev ...[text shortened]... entific evidence to the contrary, it looks like the theory of evolution is safe for another day.
If mutations are random, evolutionary results are bound to what
occurs next in mutations, or fails to occur next.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead[/b]Someone tell you a tree had a soul?
But certain concepts regarding them can be ruled out by mere thought experiments and the facts of identical twins and cloning etc.
[b]I would submit; however, that something does leave a living body
when it dies, because people die and their material make up is still
intact many times, if life were just an arrangement of chemicals why
would death co ...[text shortened]... gether in the proper fashion even though it is patently obvious that they are not (hence death).
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayAnother master arrogance of humanity. Only humans can have souls.
Someone tell you a tree had a soul?
Kelly[/b]
It's funny, humans give themselves a non-existant attribute and then use that to prove their own superiority over every other life form on earth. It's not enough to simply be the smartest, although even that has yet to be totally proven (dolphins, whales, etc.) but some people think in order to be totally superior we must posess something no other lifeform does.
3 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayI think what PBE6 is trying to say is that you are wrong to make out that evolution is supposed to be just totally random because that is simply not true because that is simply not what the theory says -do you deny this?
For the record I fail to see how you can believe that!
If mutations are random, evolutionary results are bound to what
occurs next in mutations, or fails to occur next.
Kelly
Is natural selection random? -answer -no.
Therefore, although evolution has a random element to it, it is simply false to simply say “evolution is random” as if it is ALL random for it has an essential non-random element to it. Evolution is merely partly random and partly predictable -how can something that is partly predictable be totally random?
Do you deny that natural selection is not random?
-if you do deny this then how do you explain the fact that the theory of evolution makes a prediction that only the beneficial mutations will be selected and thus the selection is not random!?
-if you not do deny this then you accept the fact that natural selection, that is a non-random process, is a part of evolution thus giving evolution some predictability -but then how can evolution be totally random if it has some predictability!?
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayNor does creationist fundamentalists have.
Someone tell you a tree had a soul?
Kelly[/b]
By the way, as souls in this thread is off-topic, I have started a new thread at a better place: at Spiritual Forum - Thread 104617